Obama fires first shot at Qaddafi

[namvet]

well we're in. wether we like it or not, the tomahawks fly. I was hoping we could stay out of this. Osama is biting off more than we can chew. be interesting to see how the libby's react and if and how much, politics calls the shots




he U.S. Navy fires the first U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles against Libyan leader's Muammar al-Qaddafi's air defenses Saturday.

The Pentagon says 112 missiles have been launched from U.S. and British ships in the Mediterranean, hitting 20 Libyan targets.

FOX (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/19/france-fires-libyan-military-vehicle/#)

[revelarts]

it's a another sad day Nam vet

A couple of thoughts
...
If the French are so hot to get Gadaffi, they should send their navy to and troops in.
...
SO now we have attacked YET ANOTHER country that has not attacked or threatened us.
...
I wonder how much of a carbon footprint tomahawk missles leave?
...
I'm reminded of a conversation with my British sister - n - law.
Imagine a Queenish Brit accent "We'll you Americans do Love war."



3 wars against countries and of course the ongoing war on bombing... I mean terrorism.

[namvet]

it's a another sad day Nam vet

A couple of thoughts
...
If the French are so hot to get Gadaffi, they should send their navy to and troops in.
...
SO now we have attacked YET ANOTHER country that has not attacked or threatened us.
...
I wonder how much of a carbon footprint tomahawk missles leave?
...
I'm reminded of a conversation with my British sister - n - law.
Imagine a Queenish Brit accent "We'll you Americans do Love war."



3 wars against countries and of course the ongoing war on bombing... I mean terrorism.

we're in a depression and he's spending on a possible escalating conflict. how much does a no fly cost. well lets see


The Cost of a No-Fly Zone

"Full No-Fly Zone" covering all of Libya

- $100 million to $300 million per week

- Initial strike to secure airspace: $500 million and $1 billion

- Six month total: $3.1 billion - $8.8 billion

- Similar to no-fly zone imposed over Iraq (Operation Northern and Southern Watch)



Limited No-Fly Zone focusing on the northern third of Libya

- $30 million to $100 million per week

- Initial strike to secure airspace: $400 million to $800 million

- Six month total $1.18 billion - $3.4 billion



Stand-off No-Fly Zone focusing on costal Libya with only air and naval assets beyond Libyan territory

- $15 million to $25 million per week

- Because this is strictly a stand-off operation with no assets in Libya, CSBA suggests no "initial cost."

- Six month total $0.39 billion - $0.65 billion

- This No-Fly zone would be enforced by three aegis-equipped destroyers.

- These ships, supported by radar monitoring planes (AWACS), and land-based fighter aircraft would intercept violating aircraft from a distance with "over-the-horizon" missiles.

- There is no historical precedent for this sort of no-fly zone.



The group also estimates a 6 month No-Fly Zone could cost as much as $9 Billion. Here's a look at the costs of previous No-Fly Zones:



3 months of air superiority over Serbia cost $2.4 billion

No Fly Zone over Iraq cost $1.3 billion per year

Libya is 6.5 times larger than the No Fly Zone over Iraq.

CSBA (Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments) estimates a 6 month No Fly Zone could cost as much as $9 billion.

source (http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/03/18/libya-cost-no-fly-zone#)

we can't even afford this. yankee stay home !!!!

[fj1200]

well we're in. wether we like it or not...

I'm not so concerned that we're in but I think that because the UN is so slow to act and the Libyans have had success in beating back the rebels of late that we're now fighting the momentum. If we had acted two weeks ago I think it would have been much easier to topple Q and that, it seems to me, is the only reason to go in there.

[namvet]

I'm not so concerned that we're in but I think that because the UN is so slow to act and the Libyans have had success in beating back the rebels of late that we're now fighting the momentum. If we had acted two weeks ago I think it would have been much easier to topple Q and that, it seems to me, is the only reason to go in there.

plus The dems don't really like the idea of taking out bad people unless it's for wine and dancing.

[Gaffer]

Let's see, we are going into Libya to save civilians from a murdering dictator under the guise of the un. We have launched attacks against the anti aircraft batteries and command and control structures. There will naturally be collateral damage and casualties. When will the screams about murdering innocents start?

I noticed the dark lord is still vacationing in Brazil while Gates canceled a trip to Europe to be there because things are too sensitive for him to be away. Imagine that?

There will eventually have to be boots on the ground. Who's they will be is up in the air right now. Pun intended. The most aggressive talker of all, the french, doesn't seem to be participating yet. But it's the middle of the weekend and they don't work weekends.

A liberal going to war just brings out the cynicism in me.

[namvet]

Let's see, we are going into Libya to save civilians from a murdering dictator under the guise of the un. We have launched attacks against the anti aircraft batteries and command and control structures. There will naturally be collateral damage and casualties. When will the screams about murdering innocents start?

I noticed the dark lord is still vacationing in Brazil while Gates canceled a trip to Europe to be there because things are too sensitive for him to be away. Imagine that?

There will eventually have to be boots on the ground. Who's they will be is up in the air right now. Pun intended. The most aggressive talker of all, the french, doesn't seem to be participating yet. But it's the middle of the weekend and they don't work weekends.

A liberal going to war just brings out the cynicism in me.

and who replace's these murdering dictator's ??? little bin ladens. thats what worries me.

we got bread lines here at home and he think's we can afford this

well if it flops he'll have to blame someone. what what was other guy's name ????

[revelarts]

NamVet,
the Money is coming from the blackhole of the printing press for this, it makes ZERO sense.


Let's see, we are going into Libya to save civilians from a murdering dictator under the guise of the un. We have launched attacks against the anti aircraft batteries and command and control structures. There will naturally be collateral damage and casualties. When will the screams about murdering innocents start?

I noticed the dark lord is still vacationing in Brazil while Gates canceled a trip to Europe to be there because things are too sensitive for him to be away. Imagine that?

There will eventually have to be boots on the ground. Who's they will be is up in the air right now. Pun intended. The most aggressive talker of all, the french, doesn't seem to be participating yet. But it's the middle of the weekend and they don't work weekends.
...

http://www.bagofnothing.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/screenshotbonv001bushbama.jpg

New boss same as the old boss.


You guys notice that the U.N is the new group the president needs to get permission from before going to war. While the poor ol constitution said it was the U.S. congress that was to approve wars.

[Gaffer]

http://www.bagofnothing.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/screenshotbonv001bushbama.jpg

New boss same as the old boss.


You guys notice that the U.N is the new group the president needs to get permission from before going to war. While the poor ol constitution said it was the U.S. congress that was to approve wars.

I noticed that too. I haven't read a single article concerning congress's approval of this action. First thing they should do is follow Reagan's lead and target Qaddafi himself.

[Kathianne]

NamVet,
the Money is coming from the blackhole of the printing press for this, it makes ZERO sense.

You guys notice that the U.N is the new group the president needs to get permission from before going to war. While the poor ol constitution said it was the U.S. congress that was to approve wars.

I noticed and am going to be interested whether or not people agree or not with this. In fact, it brings to the forefront the lack of Congressional approval not only for war, but also regarding treaties. Here's a link to an article that addresses the topic, not taking a position for the most part, but does contain a warning:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/america-junior-partner/72665/


America, Junior Partner
By Clive Crook

My first reaction to the UNSC resolution on Libya was surprise. I hadn't expected that a vote to authorize action would succeed, still less one that authorized action ("all necessary measures") far beyond merely enforcing a no-fly zone. That extra step seemed to come out of nowhere. It was vital. It may be what persuaded Libya to declare a ceasefire, and it gives Gaddafi reason to think about actually honoring it. The resolution, by the way, also allows troops on the ground, if it should come to that. It forbids an occupation force, a different thing.

To put it mildly, this is quite a moment for the UN, and for US relations with that institution. America has not led this drive to protect Libyan civilians. Britain and France can fairly claim to have done that. Read David Cameron's statement after the resolution passed. Impressive, I thought. There were three conditions for intervention, he explains: demonstrable need, regional support, and a clear legal basis--all now met...

[red states rule]

I wonder if the Code Pink crowd and the other peacenickes will take to the street, and protext outside the WH?

Will the NY Times and Washington Post write op-eds about a war over oil?

Will we she the Cindy Sheehan's of the world get endless coverage about the warmongering President?

Probably not

[namvet]

US birds in the air


Four American B2 bombers dropped 16 bombs each, striking Libyan air bases and aircraft, mobile air defense units and some ground forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, a senior U.S. military official told ABC News.

"The assessment is still ongoing, but all indications are that B2s were effective against the targets they struck," the official said.

source (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/libya-us-bombers-pound-libyan-targets-gadhafi-defiant/story?id=13178174)

[logroller]

it's a another sad day Nam vet

A couple of thoughts
...
If the French are so hot to get Gadaffi, they should send their navy to and troops in.
...
SO now we have attacked YET ANOTHER country that has not attacked or threatened us.
...
I wonder how much of a carbon footprint tomahawk missles leave?
...
I'm reminded of a conversation with my British sister - n - law.
Imagine a Queenish Brit accent "We'll you Americans do Love war."



3 wars against countries and of course the ongoing war on bombing... I mean terrorism.

I seem to remember helping a few countries, britain and france, in another endeavor. We may like war, but we're just so darn good at making weapons, it seems we need an outlet for our expertise. Ending the wars seem to be our achilles heel. I just hope that the rebel factions in libya are indeed up to the task of restoring peace on their own accord; as we suck at occupation to restore peace.

[namvet]

terrorists should be cranking up Pallywood and fauxtography to give to Reuters showing the infidels murdering innocents

[logroller]

I noticed and am going to be interested whether or not people agree or not with this. In fact, it brings to the forefront the lack of Congressional approval not only for war, but also regarding treaties. Here's a link to an article that addresses the topic, not taking a position for the most part, but does contain a warning:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/america-junior-partner/72665/

I've always found it a load of BS on pres power. B/c you need congress to declare war, but a "military action" can be enacted by the pres as commander in chief--a loophole if you will. Isnt there a time limit though, something about 72hrs or3 days?

[fj1200]

I've always found it a load of BS on pres power. B/c you need congress to declare war, but a "military action" can be enacted by the pres as commander in chief--a loophole if you will. Isnt there a time limit though, something about 72hrs or3 days?

Here you go, War_Powers_Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution)

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war.

[Kathianne]

Here you go, War_Powers_Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution)

Congress rubber stamps, it allows them to avoid problems if things don't work out, blame POTUS.

[trobinett]

I would just HATE to be a soldier during these times. Our leaders, are so confused, our direction is so MISDIRECTED, our "end game" has no finality. Totally, a cluster fuck.............:eek:

[Kathianne]

I would just HATE to be a soldier during these times. Our leaders, are so confused, our direction is so MISDIRECTED, our "end game" has no finality. Totally, a cluster fuck.............:eek:

I'd like to see % of reenlistments in 2010 and 2011, compared to the previous 8 years.

[namvet]

strike photos

http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/legacy/2010/09/660/440/Libya4_3-20.jpg
looks familar

http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/660/429/031911_libya3.jpg
is it real or Pallywood ???

FOX (http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/world/2011/03/19/military-airstrikes-carried-qaddafi-forces/#slide=1)